Option 2 may be a better choice for a cohesive set of Syslog specifications. And, a seperated informational document can be included as work item when rechartering to address the 3164 signature issue. Is it possible? The drawback is the implementer has to do something different for -protocol and 3164.
Thanks, Miao > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign? > > Hi, > > We started syslog-sign before we had Structured Data, and the > original author was creating a mechanism that could be used > within the RFC 3164 framework. However, times have changed. > We now have syslog-protocol with SDs. > > Does the WG feel that syslog-sign should contain normative > information on how to utilize the syslog-sign mechanism in > the RFC 3164 format? > > Answers can be: > __ Yes - leave it, it forms a bridge for transition, __ No - > take it out, we need to move the world along, __ Maybe - move > it to a non-normative appendix > > Thanks, > Chris > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:51:25 +0100 > From: Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: APP-NAME, > PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] > clonvick WGLC Review of > draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt > > Chris, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:37 PM > > To: Rainer Gerhards > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: > RE: [Syslog] > > clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt > > ---some elided for brevity--- > > With RFC 3164 syslog, we obviously can not totally be assured > that the SD-ID will be valid. But we should keep in mind that > we most probably will try to obsolete 3164 either via > -protocol or a follow-up RFC. I already questioned the point > in supporting this (informational!) document in a new > standard. Is this really a wise idea? > > Rainer > ---remainder elided for brevity--- > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
